The blog of ObiterJ - responsible and sometimes critical comment on legal matters of general interest. This blog does not offer legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice.
'The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The law embodies the story of a nation's development...it cannot be dealt with as if it contained the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics' - (Oliver Wendell Holmes - 1841 to 1935). Pro Aequitate Dicere

Friday, 11 June 2010

Law and Lawyers covered the MP's expenses case here. The trial judge, Saunders J, has ruled that no bar to a trial before judge and jury can be based on parliamentary privilege. Saunders J is reported as having said that there was no logical, practical or moral justification for them using parliamentary privilege to prevent a trial and he added that there was no legal basis either. "Unless this decision is reversed on appeal, it clears the way for what most people accused of criminal behaviour would wish for: a fair trial before an impartial jury." This is actually an interesting legal issue. Parliamentary Privilege belongs to parliament and not to individual members. Privilege exists essentially to ensure that members have freedom in debate to speak their minds. Even if the defence had not raised this point, the trial judge would have had to consider it so as to be sure that the matter was not covered by privilege. The fact that the point has been argued is by no means an indicator of guilt. See BBC 11th June 2010.

Addendum: 25th June - The Law Society Gazette (24th June) published an article by Joshua Rozenberg which is definitely worth reading on this topic.